The High Court quashed a planning decision for a wind turbine development after finding that the turbines and their connection to the national grid were one project whose cumulative environmental effects had to be assessed together.
In a decision given on 16 April 2015 on an application to remit the case, Mr Justice Michael Peart sent the matter back to An Bord Pleanála for a fresh decision. The court said the justice of the case required remittal, accepting the Board’s view that a fresh environmental impact assessment (EIA) could address the deficiency.
The court had already concluded that the turbine construction and grid connection were not separate projects. Because the assessment undertaken before consent did not cover the combined effects, the planning decision had to be quashed. The judgment does not identify the development’s location or state the terms of the original planning decision.
The Board argued that the developer’s environmental impact statement (EIS) had not described effects associated with the grid connection because the route and specifications were for ESB Networks to determine. It said it could conduct a compliant EIA on remittal and, if needed, request further EIS information under the regulations. The Board said a notice would then provide interested third parties an opportunity to make submissions or objections.
The applicants opposed remittal. They argued that a new EIS covering both stages was necessary and that the Board’s powers could not cure the defect by revisiting the material already submitted. Framore Limited, the second notice party, supported the Board’s application. The Board and Framore also said remittal would avoid unnecessary cost and delay.
Justice Peart said the Board should be regarded as a disinterested statutory decision-maker and that its view it could remedy the problem should not be lightly rejected. He stressed that remittal did not approve in advance any future EIA or planning decision. The applicants would remain entitled to seek leave to challenge a new decision if they considered the assessment unlawful.
The judgment records that many of the applicants’ other grounds of objection had been rejected, but does not specify them in this decision. The order remits the matter to the Board; it does not itself grant planning consent or determine what decision the Board must make after the fresh assessment.